1st April 2012, 5:14 at 5:14 am #131198
Herman Tilke has designed the last few new Formula 1 circuits. Many people, including myself, think that they are getting too much alike and too boring. What do I think they should do? Go back to the old F1 circuits! There are many great older circuits that F1 has left over the past few years that are very exciting and much better than the new ones created. The only reason they left them is because of greedy F1 boss Bernie not getting enough money from them and wanting newer and more flashy venues. Three tracks I think should be brought back are Imola, Magny-Cours, and the A1 Ring. Yes, I know the A1 Ring was designed by Tilke but it is so much better than his more recent designs. It has fast corners, lots of elevation change, and no run off area (Which I think is too forgiving for drivers running wide). Magny-Cours has such a unique set of corners and it really flows as the cars power through the fast bends. Circuits like this really test F1 cars and show people what they are really capable of. The newer circuits like Yas Marina and Singapore have none of those corners. Just slow corners where the cars go backs and forth at a 90 degree angle. Too boring and too easy. Please comment on this if you feel the same way about the direction F1 is headed in terms of circuits!1st April 2012, 8:00 at 8:00 am #198415
I think although Tilkes designs are repetitive the’re not bad I think for sure the Yas Marina has to go. It is an insanely boring track to watch and Is definitely just there for the money which is also why it will stay unfortunately. Turkey is very good but not in money terms so that has gone also. I think Malaysia Is good along with India and the USA track looks very good also. But in general yes they are way too much alike. I dislike Korea, and Russia doesn’t look that great either and even if these all these tracks were good I think other tracks are legendary and should definitely be in place of Tilkes.2nd April 2012, 9:48 at 9:48 am #198416
Running a Chinese GP in Macau instead of Shanghai would be great in my opinion. Regarding safety: Even Moto GP drives there (which shocked me quiet frankly).
French GP returning to Paul Ricard seems to happen as the news suggest. I really like that circuit, would prefer it to Magny Cours. Maybe THOSE two could switch each year, and not some french GP and Spa, which seems like an awful idea.
The old Adelaide Parklands Circuit would make a great addition to the calendar I think, replacing Albert Park as season opener.
Like CarnivorousPope I like some Tilke tracks like Istanbul, Sepang and Buddh International and also hope the best for Austin.2nd April 2012, 10:38 at 10:38 am #198417
I don’t think the problem is Tilke. I think the problem is the cars. As GP2 proved last year, you can have fantastic racing at Abu Dhabi.2nd April 2012, 11:20 at 11:20 am #198418
The point has been raised elsewhere, but it it Tilke or the regs?
no run off area (Which I think is too forgiving for drivers running wide)
This thinking isn’t in line with the driver saftey requirements of this day and age – though how Monaco is still on the calendar is a different argument.
It’s been clear for a while Mr. E is more interested in the $$ than fans…2nd April 2012, 11:26 at 11:26 am #198419
@plushpile – Bernie has nothing to do with circuit regulations. The vast acres of tarmac run-off are the brain-child of the FIA.2nd April 2012, 11:29 at 11:29 am #198420
Like many things in life a lot of the fun is being taken out by safety regulations, but I would rather that than people getting hurt. When it gets to the point where none of the decent tracks are left and people stop watching they’ll have to do something about it, but as long as the money is rolling in there’s little reason to stop switching to the newer tracks and leaving some of the greatest circuits behind.2nd April 2012, 11:34 at 11:34 am #198421
Didn’t separate my thoughts.
OP mentioned bringing back the old circuits, not gunna happen while CVC is using the sport as a cash cow.
Bernie might not set the regs, but he does control the commercial side of the sport – including which circuits will hold a race, the FIA are the ones deciding if the circuit is fit for F15th April 2012, 22:58 at 10:58 pm #198422
Istanbul – Really sad to see it go, but understandable if the stands were empty every year. On the other hand, if F1 was promoted more in Turkey, it may have been more successful.
A1 Ring – Would love to see this track back on the calendar. It produced some excellent racing, but I doubt it will return so long as Red Bull are in F1.
Yas Marina – Flashy and spectacular, yes; exciting and interesting, definately not. Like Pope said, unfortunately we’re not going to get rid of it because it brings in too much money.5th April 2012, 23:10 at 11:10 pm #198423
@vettels – There’s a simple solution to Abu Dhabi: change the cars. GP2 proved you can have exciting racing there. All Formula 1 needs to do is ban the concept of aerodynamics.5th April 2012, 23:59 at 11:59 pm #198424
The circuit is still dreary even if the races were better. It does liven it up, but it isn’t quite so much of a spectacle when the circuit still looks like an endless series of 90 degree bends. I’d rather see an inspiring circuit giving a good race than an uninspiring one doing the same. Also, GP2 is a spec series, so what you’re saying is that F1 needs to have completely equal cars to provide any excitement at Abu Dhabi?6th April 2012, 13:01 at 1:01 pm #198425
That’s ridiculous. The whole point of F1 is that it’s highly technical, and aerodynamics are an important part of this. If you want to watch “simple” cars with little downforce, there are plenty of racing series: Nascar, IndyCar, touring cars, etc. For better or for worse, F1 is not the sport it was 20 years ago- aerodynamics are a much more important part of the cars now.
If Yas Marina can’t produce decent racing, that’s not F1’s fault. Abu Dhabi may work well with GP2, but this is not GP2. We should be picking exciting tracks to suit the cars, and Yas Marina simply doesn’t suit F1.6th April 2012, 16:25 at 4:25 pm #198426
I wouldn’t particularly say IndyCar lacks downforce or are simple cars. If anything, this year’s first two races point towards them having cracked the passing nut without sacrificing the wings or coming up with a DRS-esque gimmick (hell, they don’t even have the push-to-pass yet and passing has been great). Unsightly as the cars may be, I approve of the racing they’re providing currently.
I think both the FIA regulations and Bernie’s money-hungry nature are equally to blame for the types of tracks that are being visited. The safety isn’t able to be compromised (because we really don’t need to head back to a bloodlust sport) but the money required of the circuits CAN be changed. That said, I think some have written of Tilke tracks too early simply because of his name being attached. Buddh, though the last race lacked in passing, is a pretty cool track I have to admit. I would love to get to drive it. Likewise, I’m among those who think Turkey is an excellent circuit.6th April 2012, 21:23 at 9:23 pm #198427
Compared to F1, IndyCar is a lot less technically advanced. Whilst it would be nice if F1 could produce slightly more exciting racing at times, that shouldn’t come at a cost of technical innovation. Simply doing away with aerodynamics, as Prisoner suggested, may result in closer racing, but it really wouldn’t be F1 any more.7th April 2012, 1:36 at 1:36 am #198428
Should they do away with aero? No. If IndyCar’s trend of races with passing being more feasible continues, should they take note and see what they can adopt to help? Yes.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.